Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm
... and here is one peer-reviewed list of a few Mammal Kinds ... or Baramin with their sub-Baramin:-
Proboscid (Elephant) Baramin ... etc. etc.
Bravo, JC, you have managed to plumb new depths of stupidity. Before I get to the scientific evidence why this list is bollocks, a little bit of a primer is necessary.
Most of the work that has gone into this list was conducted by the Baraminology Study Group. Its members include YECs and IDers such as Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, Wayne Frair, Richard Sternberg, Johnathan Wells and Marcus Ross.
Todd, in collaboration with Megan Murray wrote the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life" which kind of acts like the BSG handbook. Among the more interesting passages in the book the authors write:
"We creationists rest instead on the philosophical and biblical foundation...Since we believe that something like a diverse unit of biological creation must exist, detecting baramins becomes a matter of adjusting our context until the baraminic limits emerge"
"Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."
Separately to this, Wood has, in other publications (none of which, JC, have been peer-reviewed) that:
"Though bias in group and character selections prevent firm conclusions, it appears at this time that Price's suggestion that "family" is an approximation of the 'created kind' may be correct."
Furthermore, the BSG has defined 'baramin' as:
"A baramin is a group that shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and is borderd by discontinuity."
Don't you just love the vagueness of it all? I bet these guys really love playing Six Degrees.
The BSG mission statement states:
"The mission of the BSG is to develop and nurture a community of dedicated researchers committed to understanding the life sciences from a young-earth creationist perspective through meetings and publications."
It doesn't get much clearer than that. That, JC, is the very definition of unscientific.
Furthermore they also produced a doctrinal statement (well they are a religious group) which states:
"...The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is verbally inerrant in all its original autographs and absolutely authoritative in all areas in which it speaks.
God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. According to biblical chronology, Creation occurred less than ten thousand years ago. The original Creation was perfect, lacking predation, disease and biblical death. After Adam and Eve sinned, moral and natural evil entered creation.
The Flood of Genesis 6-9 was an historical event, at least global in scope, sent to punish the sin of mankind."
On a side note, what the hell does "at least global in scope" mean? Are they suggesting that there were some sinners on Titan in need of wiping out aswell?
Now down to the scientific problems associated with their claims and your parroting of them JC. First of all as Wood has stated, the term 'kind' is approximately equivalent to the real term "family." This immediately creates a problem for your flood story. To give you an example of what I mean, consider that there are 806 families in the subphylum vertebrata alone and that even going back just as far as the level of kingdom, there are 35 phyla in the kingdom Animalia. I mean there are 109 families of spider alone ffs.
Secondly, there is the deeply unscientific and untestable nature of the criteria for establishing membership of a kind. The BSG claim that they use both additive and subtractive evidence in support of their claims. The additive evidence consists of morphological similarity and hybridisation while the subtractive evidence consists of morphological dissimilarity, lack of fossil evidence and scriptural claims of discontinuity.
First of all, with regard to morphology, the experience gained from the real research conducted over the past 200 years in biology shows that morphology may not always be a reliable guide in determining relationships and genetic or other more concrete evidence is desirable.
Secondly, with regard to hybridisation, I have previously posted that we have found examples of interfamilal hybrids which undermines the position of the BSG.
Thirdly, negative evidence doesn't magically transform into positive evidence. Lack of fossils means lack of fossils. It doesn't mean you can start making positive inferences about it.
Finally, what place does any kind of textual or literary evidence have in hard scientific inquiry?
Finally, on the subject of scientific problems the body of research in this area is overwhelming but for the moment I'm going to stick with human evolution. Surely, given the biblical claim for the separate creation of humans and apes then any kind of shared ancestry would be impossible and yet, that's what we find, again and again as you can see below (apologies for the repost):
At least now, JC, you've been specific enough for everyone to see that your claims lack any merit, are wholly unscientific and downright laughable. Thanks JC, you're doing more damage to creationism than we ever could.0 -
-
Nice. I
your posts on evolution oldrnwisr, you know that?
Alas, J C will just scream "NO U!" and pretend he won a victory.I see you have a bloody nose ... and two black eyes ... or is that a 'Hitler mustache' and two black eyes??
... either way ... I agree that a diploma in aromatherapy doesn't qualify you for much ... but some women will love the smell of you!!!:):D
EDIT: Ah, J C, that's pretty petty, even for you. Surely you can do better than retarded comments about avatars and glib remarks about me practising aromatherapy? Do I have to start suggesting you're a flagrant homosexual again, or do you think you could act with a shred of maturity?
I've been pretty open about my scientific qualifications. Why are you so scared? Feeling inadequate with a certificate in shoelace tying?0 -
You could say all of that ... but then you are an Evolutionist.Bravo, JC, you have managed to plumb new depths of stupidity. Before I get to the scientific evidence why this list is bollocks, a little bit of a primer is necessary.
Most of the work that has gone into this list was conducted by the Baraminology Study Group. Its members include YECs and IDers such as Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, Wayne Frair, Richard Sternberg, Johnathan Wells and Marcus Ross.
Todd, in collaboration with Megan Murray wrote the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life" which kind of acts like the BSG handbook. Among the more interesting passages in the book the authors write:
"We creationists rest instead on the philosophical and biblical foundation...Since we believe that something like a diverse unit of biological creation must exist, detecting baramins becomes a matter of adjusting our context until the baraminic limits emerge"
"Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."
Separately to this, Wood has, in other publications (none of which, JC, have been peer-reviewed) that:
"Though bias in group and character selections prevent firm conclusions, it appears at this time that Price's suggestion that "family" is an approximation of the 'created kind' may be correct."
Furthermore, the BSG has defined 'baramin' as:
"A baramin is a group that shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and is borderd by discontinuity."
Don't you just love the vagueness of it all? I bet these guys really love playing Six Degrees.
The BSG mission statement states:
"The mission of the BSG is to develop and nurture a community of dedicated researchers committed to understanding the life sciences from a young-earth creationist perspective through meetings and publications."
It doesn't get much clearer than that. That, JC, is the very definition of unscientific.
Furthermore they also produced a doctrinal statement (well they are a religious group) which states:
"...The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is verbally inerrant in all its original autographs and absolutely authoritative in all areas in which it speaks.
God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. According to biblical chronology, Creation occurred less than ten thousand years ago. The original Creation was perfect, lacking predation, disease and biblical death. After Adam and Eve sinned, moral and natural evil entered creation.
The Flood of Genesis 6-9 was an historical event, at least global in scope, sent to punish the sin of mankind."
On a side note, what the hell does "at least global in scope" mean? Are they suggesting that there were some sinners on Titan in need of wiping out aswell?
Now down to the scientific problems associated with their claims and your parroting of them JC. First of all as Wood has stated, the term 'kind' is approximately equivalent to the real term "family." This immediately creates a problem for your flood story. To give you an example of what I mean, consider that there are 806 families in the subphylum vertebrata alone and that even going back just as far as the level of kingdom, there are 35 phyla in the kingdom Animalia. I mean there are 109 families of spider alone ffs.
Secondly, there is the deeply unscientific and untestable nature of the criteria for establishing membership of a kind. The BSG claim that they use both additive and subtractive evidence in support of their claims. The additive evidence consists of morphological similarity and hybridisation while the subtractive evidence consists of morphological dissimilarity, lack of fossil evidence and scriptural claims of discontinuity.
First of all, with regard to morphology, the experience gained from the real research conducted over the past 200 years in biology shows that morphology may not always be a reliable guide in determining relationships and genetic or other more concrete evidence is desirable.
Secondly, with regard to hybridisation, I have previously posted that we have found examples of interfamilal hybrids which undermines the position of the BSG.
Thirdly, negative evidence doesn't magically transform into positive evidence. Lack of fossils means lack of fossils. It doesn't mean you can start making positive inferences about it.
Finally, what place does any kind of textual or literary evidence have in hard scientific inquiry?
Common design explains what you say ... and last time I saw a Chimpanzee it was clear to me that it wasn't Human ... and would never be Human.:)Finally, on the subject of scientific problems the body of research in this area is overwhelming but for the moment I'm going to stick with human evolution. Surely, given the biblical claim for the separate creation of humans and apes then any kind of shared ancestry would be impossible and yet, that's what we find, again and again as you can see below (apologies for the repost):
.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Nice. I your posts on evolution oldrnwisr, you know that?
Alas, J C will just scream "NO U!" and pretend he won a victory.
Thanks Sarky, that is much appreciated. As someone whose knowledge of evolution is autodidactic, its great to be able to engage with others of like mind and who have studied life sciences extensively.
Naturally, I have stopped expecting any kind of coherent or meaningful response from JC.
Speaking of which:You could say all of that ... but then you are an Evolutionist.
Is that all you've got to say?Common design explains what you say ... and last time I saw a Chimpanzee it was clear to me that it wasn't Human ... and would never be Human.
Ah, yes common design. So shared ancestry is due to common design and non-shared ancestry is due to same design.
Also, why would evidence indicating shared ancestry, which you are suggesting is common design, be realised through errors, broken chromosomes and broken genes. I mean, for example, why would God give us a broken copy of the Vitamin C synthesis gene. I thought humans were supposed to be the pinnacle of your God's creation.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I do know what a family tree looks like ... and your illustration isn't a family tree ... it has a line of descent and a family bush!!!:eek:Some learning material for JC.
In any event, the definitive test of animals with common ancestry is their ability to inter-breed (to some degree) ... and Apes and Men cannot interbreed to any degree ... while the Big Cats can all inter-breed.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement